http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-st-louis/supreme-court-agrees...

Kurt Hofmann

* St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner

SubscribeSponsor an Examiner

Supreme Court agrees with the NRA--AGAINST gun rights

* November 17th, 2010 11:16 am CT

Do you like this story?

Some gun owners, flush with triumph after the Heller and McDonald decisions (triumph about which I'm more than a little dubious), might find the title of today's column somewhat surprising, but I can see no other way to interpret Monday's decision in Abbott v. U.S. and Gould v. U.S. From the Washington Post:

The court examined a federal law that allows tougher sentences for those who use firearms while selling drugs or committing violent acts, and said the intent of a slightly ambiguous turn of phrase was clear: to tack more years onto an offender's sentence.

This is one of the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968, and SCOTUS decided 8-0 (Justice Kagan was recused, because of her former involvement with the case as Solicitor General, but the decision was in line with the position she advanced in that role, so if she had not been recused, we can assume the decision would have been 9-0).

"But wait," some will undoubtedly object--"surely you don't mean to say you have a problem with throwing the book at armed drug dealers and violent criminals?!" Well, actually, on the drug dealer thing, I'm something of a pacifist when it comes to the "War on Drugs," and think that people have the right to poison their bodies with whatever drugs they choose for that purpose, and that other people have the right to sell them those poisons. As for the violent criminals, by all means throw the book at them, and make it a big, heavy book. If, however, the sentence for the violent crime itself is not deemed harsh enough, that's what needs to be changed, rather than tacking on additional prison time for the criminal's choice of equipment.

These "enhanced" penalties, because the criminal had a gun, punish the criminal not for the heinousness of his crime, or the amount of harm he inflicts on society, but for his exercise of a Constituionally guaranteed, fundamental human right. A predatory animal in human skin who commits rape while armed with nothing but size, strength, and ruthlessness that his victim cannot match is just as evil as one who commits the same atrocity while armed with a gun, and deserves to be punished just as harshly. A beast who strangles someone with her bikini top is no less evil than one who shoots his victim to death.

I realize, of course, that the NRA doesn't share my objection--executive vice president Wayne LaPierre has, in fact, criticized the federal justice system for not using such prosecutorial gambits more often:

The manual covers “… the mandatory consecutive and enhanced punishment under this section, which can significantly increase a sentence especially where firearms are used in numerous criminal acts …”

All of these provisions were supported or initiated through NRA’s efforts. Our goal has always been to get armed, violent felons into prison where they belong. Public safety demands no less.

All of these sections fit to a “T” what prosecutors should have done in the cases of the alleged March 30 drive-by shooters who randomly killed four kids and wounded five others. It’s astounding that U.S. attorneys haven’t used the resources of the United States District Court more aggressively to bring armed thugs to justice under very forceful laws against armed, violent criminal predators.

The NRA, of course, proudly touts its support of "Project Exile" (putting them in alignment with the Brady Campaign), aggressively applying federal gun laws (you know--infringing on that which shall not be infringed)--all in keeping with the NRA's "enforce the laws on the books" mantra, blissfully unconcerned about the unconstitutionality of "the laws on the books" (a position they share with Nancy Pelosi and the Obama White House).

Heck--for all I know, the NRA might at any moment start crowing that Monday's Supreme Court decision was another "victory."

Update: Seattle Gun Rights Examiner Dave Workman takes a view quite different from mine. I reckon this here gun rights advocacy movement is big enough for the both of us, though.

See also:

* Congratulations, NRA--now you're as 'pro-gun' as . . . Nancy Pelosi.